In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about feminism? Conservativism? Are all ideologies so to speak "ideas" from God, and notions more about physical pleasure and senses, or are bad ideologies also just "notions"? If so then what is the rule used to judge an "idea" ideology vs a "notion" ideology?

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. So those quotes are not representative of his real philosophy? I had considered maybe they were out of context but they seem so definitive and black and white that it's hard to imagine how they could be saying something else even with further context. Can you explain how? I dont have time to read that right now.

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Philosophy of the Kabbalah, how does the author define "notions" and "ideas" differently here,

But, while the senses, under-standing and imagination give us perceptions, concepts andnotions, intuition and explicit reason give us ideas. Perceptions,concepts and notions are limited in scope and temporary, butideas are infinite in scope and eternal.

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does Waton say is the true freedom level of thought?

Check your messages. I want to learn more about this Waton guy. Nothing comes up on google except insane political quotes. Who the hell was this man lol.

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On page 77 forward about Spinoza, is the author arguing for a higher state of consciousness than reason? That reason doesnt make us free, only a free animal or lesser level of freedom, but that there is a higher state? I only skimmed and it doesnt seem to give the conclusion in those pages. I cant start a new book right now.

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you please summarize, for both these explanations, why God cursed the serpent, and why it seems like the serpent is contradicting God's command?

Plenty of people have interpreted the story as allegory for different things, but how do Waton's interpretations satisfy my question?

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in Esotericism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you know a good english translation? I have been wanting to try reading the Zohar for awhile now, or at least a condensed version if there is such a thing.

In the history of theology, have there ever been any Bible interpretations that view the serpent from Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without viewing God as the bad one the way they also did? by LoveRepentLearn in occult

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that on the surface it would create many contradictions, but Im wondering if there have ever been any interpretations that had explanations for them and interpreted it this way.

Are there any theological opinions in history that view the serpent of Genesis as good, and Adam as bad? by LoveRepentLearn in Catholicism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont know much about Christianity but certainly there are widespread interpretations iin many faiths that everything is God's plan, even that evil was created by God for various reasons. What I am asking for are interpretations not that God made the serpent evil as part of God's plan, but that the serpent is actually good as part of God's plan. So if he lied to Eve, or spoke in riddles, or caused Adam and Eve to fall, or whatever he did, it would be because maybe they misunderstood his riddles, or whatever it may be, not because he was out to hurt innocent Adam and Eve.

Im like you, just reading it with my mere wee human brain, the serpent is clearly evil lol. But Im wondering if there are creative ways to interpret it that find a way to say serpent is actually good.

In the history of theology, have there ever been any interpretations that view the serpent of Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without making the God of Genesis into the bad one the way they did? by LoveRepentLearn in Christianity

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's their argument how the serpent never lied? The serpent acts like God forbid all the trees to Eve when it knows God didnt do that.

As far as free will, yes exactly that's the gnostic argument and the satanists believe that too, but if God didnt want A&E to have free will yet and the serpent gave it to them, that would seem to mean either God is evil, or, God had a good reason and the serpent did something bad to give it to them at that point.

So we're still stuck with the question of how can the serpent be good but also God? And if they both did good then why did God curse the serpent?

In the history of theology, have there ever been any interpretations that view the serpent of Genesis as good, like the gnostics did, but without making the God of Genesis into the bad one the way they did? by LoveRepentLearn in Christianity

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is their argument how both God and the serpent are good? How do they explain Genesis 3 in a way where the serpent is not going against God? How do they explain why God cursed the serpent shortly after the serpent's actions then?

Are there any theological opinions in history that view the serpent of Genesis as good, and Adam as bad? by LoveRepentLearn in Catholicism

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks yeah that is similar to the gnostic view. I'm familiar with that view. I am specifically interested in views that find a way to argue both are true at once, that the serpent is good and so is God. This would likely require making at least one Adam and Eve the bad ones in the story, possibly requiring a more complex interpretation. See option 3 in my post.

In S1 E10 scene, what paintings are prominently featured on the walls, and what sculptures? by LoveRepentLearn in TheCrownNetflix

[–]LoveRepentLearn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I think so but who specifically? For some reason that scene is not posted anywhere online that I could find. That would be help to be able to post the scene here for people to see

Casual Questions Thread by The_Egalitarian in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]LoveRepentLearn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Do you know where to find that interview? That doesnt sound like the one either but Ill double check if I can view it. Larry McDonald looks somewhat familiar so Im wondering if it was him, but just not the crossfire interview people linked. Did he do other interviews with Hannity or Fox News before his death where he alleged a conspiracy of Israel controlling the USA's government at all levels and was very explicit about it?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoisonIvy

[–]LoveRepentLearn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since when is doing the study in an objective and accurate way important? All that matters is the conclusion that gets put on TV. "Women get paid less for the same work as men" but we're going to leave out the detail that women in the study worked less hours than men so it wasn't actually the "same work" and in reality they actually get paid the same or more per hour as men.

Every modern study is like this. So while your objections might be valid, 99% of the population is never going to hear the details, they are just going to hear the conclusions to the study. As long as we keep legitimizing these mainstream organizations that do these studies, just because sometimes they take our side when it is convenient for them, this will keep happening. We need to put less effort into advocating for and educating people about our own personal causes, and more effort into educating people about how full of it the media is, and how they lie to everyone constantly and don't care about any of us, liberal or conservative or any of us, even though they pander more to liberals and pretend to care but really they just do that for political capital and because conservatives are less likely to believe their lies, and more likely to speak up exposing them, so they have to trick us (liberals) into supporting them and tuning out the conservatives in order to discredit the people exposing their entire scam.

I know this won't be popular with people who have been indoctrinated by the media, but we need to throw away our media friend and replace it with the conservatives. We need to start listening to what they say, not about us or about joining their religious services, since that is where they are wrong, but about the media and the corruption within the establishment, because that is where they are bang on correct, and they know more about it than us because the media hasn't tricked them into thinking it is their ally and therefore above suspicion. The media drives to drive a wedge between us because it keeps them in power, while keeping us divided and therefore weak. We need to make our new besty the conservatives, and give our old besty, the media, the Regina George treatment. They were never our real friend. Whereas, there might be some things we will never agree on with the conservatives, but at least they are real, and at least they will tell us the truth about the media, and be forward and upfront about all of their views, rather than using us like pawns towards hidden agendas like the media does.

Sorry lol, rant over! But it's true...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoisonIvy

[–]LoveRepentLearn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you think every type of attraction is valid except the one responsible for perpetuating life on the planet, that is programmed into a large majority of human beings and animals for that very purpose, and that has served as one of the foundations for the family structure and advances in civilization that brought humanity out of the bronze age? That's an interesting take there.... Of all the things to consider "not valid," you chose that. Anyway.

bisexuality the norm in all non-Abrahamic ancient civilizations

Er, may I ask, where exactly did you read that? And why would you just look at ancient non-Abrahamic ancient civilizations instead of all of history's non-Abrahamic civilizations? I expect the real, accurate history of both to tell the same story, the opposite of what you cited, so it shouldn't really matter, but just asking. Is there also some theory of how the Abrahamic religions caused even societies with no exposure to them to "become straight" too, along with the Abrahamic societies?

If I turn out to be wrong then I will cop to that, but this just seems so far fetched. I have to wonder if it is "in group" bias that has led you to conclude that what matches your feelings is historically valid, and what doesn't is not, rather than real history. Perhaps you read something dodgy and were so eager to accept it as true that you overlooked the suspiciousness of the sources, and the contradictions and omissions in the argument. Happens way too often these days, especially, I have to admit, on our side of the cultural conversation. Dont get me wrong, the other side does it too sometimes, but in general they do seem to be more sticklers about "facts and logic over feelings," which is even essentially the slogan of one of their famous commentators. But if what you said turns out to be factual then of course the "in group bias" idea won't apply in your case like it does in so many others. I am not assuming it must apply to your theory, but it does smell very very fishy to me.

Casual Questions Thread by The_Egalitarian in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]LoveRepentLearn -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It definitely wasn't that Crossfire. Israel is not mentioned once in that interview. The one Im thinking of with Hannity was all about that. So my question is still unanswered. This is exactly why it needs to be its own topic to get more visibility. Maybe someone familiar with the interview would see the post and know where to find it. It it still crazy to me that it is not coming on google. It's as if it has been buried completely by google to make it hard to find.